“Dec. 29, 2006 – In a highly unusual move, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has rescinded an award to an Islamic activist in her home state because of the man’s connections to a major American Muslim organization that recently has been courted by leading political figures and even the FBI.

Boxer tells NEWSWEEK she never saw the letter to CAIR signed in her name or was even aware of the award to Elkarra before it was sent out. “I feel terrible about this,” she says. “We just made a mistake. I was not in the loop. That was an automatic signature [on the letter].” But Boxer stands by her decision to withdraw the award and to distance herself from CAIR, saying she was influenced by previous critical statements about CAIR made by her Democratic colleagues Sens. Richard Durbin of Illinois and Charles Schumer of New York. “To praise an organization because they haven’t been indicted is like somebody saying, ‘I’m not a crook,’” Boxer says. “I’m going to take a lot of hits for this. But I’m just doing what I think is right.””

There’s more, much more

1) “Should I be afraid of (hypothetical)legislators who believe that, for example, the world will literally end in our lifetime?”

Not particularly on 2 points:
A) From a literalist POV, it matters not what any one does, we can not hasten nor prolong the end of the world, or more accurately, Christ’s 2nd coming. To wit, Matt 25 & Acts 1:6 – 11. Our instructions are to carry on productively without concern as to the timing.
B) Part of our tasking is to spread the Gospel. This witness has always intended as a mission of persuasion. not coercion. After all, a personal relationship stems from the heart, not dogma or recitation of special words, IOW take it or leave it. (Rev 22:8 -17)

Bear in mind that when it comes to mankind, we tend to subvert truth to our ends. Legislators from Constantine thru Popes and Puritans have sought to codify the faith. It simply didn’t work. And under our constitution it won’t work here now nor ever, unless of course our constitution is fundamentally altered, i.e. substitute the guarantees of religious freedom, for the guarantees proffered by a ‘superior’ religion.

That said, Christian citizens have every right to expect that society reflects certain morals and standards, just as any other citizen.

2) In looking up the quote of Ben Franklin’s “A republic if you can keep it”, I found a January 2000 article by TX Congresscritter Ron Paul, that unintentionally gets to the crux of this thread.

In fact, rather than finish my own train of thot, I think this is a must read, just substitute the context of islam, jihad, sharia, Ellison etc and you can see where Mr. Goode is coming from.

Here’s just the introduction to Ron Paul’s treatise below:

PS Alvin, I look forward to any other questions you may have. Ciao

The dawn of a new century and millennium is upon us and prompts many to reflect on our past and prepare for the future. Our nation, divinely blessed, has much to be thankful for. The blessings of liberty resulting from the republic our forefathers designed have far surpassed the wildest dreams of all previous generations.
The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic if you can keep it” responded Franklin.
The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.
The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.
Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several states, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new Republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the states and the people.
Dividing and keeping separate the legislative, executive, and the judiciary branches, provided the checks and balances thought needed to preserve the Republic the Constitution created and the best way to preserve individual liberty.
The American Revolutionaries clearly chose liberty over security, for their economic security and their very lives were threatened by undertaking the job of forming a new and limited government. Most would have been a lot richer and safer by sticking with the King. Economic needs or desires were not the driving force behind the early American patriotic effort.
The Revolution and subsequent Constitution settled the question as to which authority should rule man’s action: the individual or the state. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood that man has free will to make personal choices and be responsible for the consequences of his own actions. Man, they knew, was not to be simply a cog in a wheel, or a single cell of an organism, or a branch of a tree, but an individual with a free will and responsibility for his eternal soul as well as his life on earth. If God could permit spiritual freedom, government certainly ought to permit the political freedom that allows one to pursue life’s dreams and assume one’s responsibilities. If man can achieve spiritual redemption through grace, which allows him to use the released spiritual energy to pursue man’s highest and noblest goals, so should man’s mind, body, and property be freed from the burdens of unchecked government authority. The Founders were confident that this would release the creative human energy required to produce the goods and services that would improve the living standards of all mankind.
Minimizing government authority over the people was critical to this endeavor. Just as the individual was key to salvation, individual effort was the key to worldly endeavors. Little doubt existed that material abundance and sustenance came from work and effort, family, friends, church, and voluntary community action, as long as government did not obstruct.
No doubts were cast as to where rights came from. They came from the Creator, and if government could not grant rights to individuals, it surely should not be able to take them away. If government could provide rights or privileges, it was reasoned, it could only occur at the expense of someone else or with the loss of personal liberty in general. Our constitutional Republic, according to our Founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature.
It was clearly recognized that equal justice and protection of the minority was not egalitarianism. Socialism and welfarism were never considered.
The colonists wanted to be free of the King’s oppressive high taxes and burdensome regulations. It annoyed them to no end that even the trees on their own property could not be cut without the King’s permission. The King kept the best trees for himself and his shipbuilding industry. This violation of property ownership prompted the colonists to use the pine tree on an early revolutionary flag to symbolize the freedom they sought.
The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive non-violent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America’s great achievements. It was a great plan; we should all be thankful for the bravery and wisdom of those who established this nation and secured the Constitution for us. We have been the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed. The Founders often spoke of “divine providence” and that God willed us this great nation. It has been a grand experiment, but it is important that the fundamental moral premises that underpin this nation are understood and maintained. We as Members of Congress have that responsibility.
This is a good year to address this subject. The beginning of the new century and millennium provides a wonderful opportunity for all of us to dedicate ourselves to studying and preserving these important principles of liberty.

On that point (radical religious movements have failed in the US) you’re correct, but that’s ONLY because America has been both a European and Christian-based nation, as impolitic as that may be to say and because America has taken a strong, sometimes violent stand against those radical religions.

All native Americans (Americans by birth) have been immersed in a European-based culture, with laws, customs and a common language that have all sprung from Europe. And it’s been heavilly influenced by the Christian tradition that values things like tolerance and acceptance of differences – few other religions do that.

Sharia Law is, in and of itself, anthithetical to American values.

Everywhere that Muslims have become a majority Sharia Law has become the Civil Law of that land and anywhere Muslims have become a sizable minority (England, France and Belgium) they have instigated conflict with those “non-believers” around them.

I should acknowledge up front that I come into this sort of discussion from a different place than many people. I’ve been a HazMat Specialist for the past two years in NYC and have been sent to a slew of schools (bomb school, rad school, chemical agent ed and have attended various terror summits) and though I didn’t come into it with the view that traditional Shria-based Islam is THE problem, I’ve become convinced of that now.

Some may well argue that such a view benefits those in my line of work, by pushing the need for more anti-terror funding and greater police powers to combat this threat, and I have considered that, but I everything I’ve seen to date points to Sharia Law as the foundation of our current problem.

The question, to me, isn’t “Can one be a good Muslim and not a threat to the non-Muslim,” but “Weren’t those 19 Arabs who engineered 9/11 “good Muslims,” and weren’t those who killed Vincent van Gough’s grandson “good Muslims” too?”

According to Sharia Law, the 9/11 hijackers, those who rape in the name of Allah in Darfur and those who murdered van Gough’s grandson were all “good Muslims.”

That’s why everyone should view that film “Obsession” at least once.

If you have a real interest in the situation, I find the new book by Mark Steyn, America Alone, is as good an eye-opener as anything in print.

Americans have been seduced by the idea of separation between church and state. The seduction is so complete that the concept of a theocracy overcoming the state is relegated to the realm of fantasy. Nazism, communism, and fascism were all cancers that grew from within and Islamo-fascism has got a real momentum in much of the world. It has strong roots in the USA, as well. Ignore it at your peril.

Hollywood would have no qualms making a film about fundamentalist Christian snake handlers or a Christian politician who was warning of Armageddon around the next corner. Nor would there be any scarcity of big name actors to play the lead roles. But Hollywood will not make a totally neutral movie about the life of the Mohamed, because the Danish cartoon episode proved that only crazies snicker at fatwas.

Keep track of the daily news in Dearborn, Michigan. Islam there is far from a get-along benign alternative to being an aethiest or Unitarian.

Anyone who voluntarily ignores warnings like this (and countless others like it) needs to re-evaluate his or her perspective.

I don’t see Islam as having any more success here (peacefully or violently). That’s my take.

I also don’t see a need to make a special case for them, as opposed to any other threat, that is not already protected against by our laws, and if necessary by our armed forces.

And I still see the need to protect ALL religious freedoms, and other freedoms the Constitution guarantees. No exceptions.

I can only guess. One answer (in analogy) is that a family might fight bitterly among themselves, but come together from outside threats. Greater distractions such as invasions.

Two: The conservative Methodist is less alarmed by the snake handling speaking in tongues fundamentalist than the atheist. The first two, being in the same camp (more or less) at least identify a common cause.

Third: If you observe, for example, culture in Iran, where you have a clash of conservative versus westernized standards, there certainly hasn’t been complete silence.

Fourth: Political examples – It’s usually not Republicans going after Republicans and Democrats going after Democrats. You don’t eat your own as a general rule (at least not outright).

Fifth: Otherwise, I don’t know. I have only stated guesses why they may act as they do.

“If I’m ‘not’ going to support Christianity being foisted from government positions, I’m not going to support Islam either, Hindu, Native Indian practices, whatever. (I dont know about the plans of the rest of the left-leaning, but I suspect its much the same)” (jsm)

No other religion has, among its tenets, anything like Dhimmitude – the second class citizenship assigned to all non-Muslims by Muslim orthodoxy.

It is not “radicalized Islam” that is the threat to the West, it is traditional, Sharia-based Islam that is the problem.

This is very easily evidenced by simply looking around the world at the various conflicts;

(*) In Darfur traditional Sharia-based Muslims have engaged in a prolonged campaign of genocide and rape against the Sudan’s non-Muslim populations to the south.

(*) In Somalia a Muslim government has attacked Ethiopia and other surrounding nations.

(*) In the Balkans, the Muslims of Kosovo began the first genocide, murdering 3000 Christian Serbs. Milocevic merely responded in kind, slaughtering 10,000 Muslims.

(*) In Kashmir traditional Sharia-based Muslims clash with Hindus.

(*) In the Phillipines and Indonesia, traditional Sharia-based Muslims clash with Catholics.

What Jim Robertson said above seems to have been enacted all over the world;

He asked a Muslim whom he knew well if this was the general goal of Muslims of the world, and he received an answer which shocked him.

The man told him, very casually, that there were 3 phases of Islam:

#1: Peaceful coexistence.

#2: Bids for positions of power and influence to effect policy-making, etc…

#3: Surprise!….JIHAD.

It isn’t religious intrusion in government that is the problem with Islam, it’s that Sharia-based Islam is completely and utterly incompatible with Western traditions and values.

A GREAT documentary on this is Obsession

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

Regarding #53, “no such word as eschaton”
I’ll work on my writing. But I gather you worked out what I was trying to ask. Should I be afraid of (hypothetical)legislators who believe that, for example, the world will literally end in our lifetime?

Regarding #48, “What’s the point … ?”
You give me too much credit. I’m not trying to make a subtle point. I’m asking if I should (also) be worried about (hypothetical) Christian extremists in office? Assuming there is such a thing as a Christian extremist. I certainly (as far as I understand the issue) agree that Islamic extremism would make for bad legislation.

Regarding #48, ” … and how does it tie in with #36?”
It doesn’t. At least I didn’t mean for it to. I meant to ask two separate questions. One is about how to interpret the Statute of Religious Freedom. The other is about what sorts of religious beliefs might be considered “dangerous” if used to formulate legislation.

Regarding #48, “polygamy” etc ?
Is there a difference between what people are free to believe and what people are free to practice? I certainly hope so.

I’m not attacking Representative Goode, nor am I defending Representative Ellison. Thanks for giving me more to think about.

To Mr. Goode’s credit, he is not backing down from his stand, despite the barrage of the ongoing facile, kneejerk MSM pummeling.

Fair enough. Turkey, Jordan and Egypt are three Muslim majorities that have to deal with Sharia law. Mubarak of Egypt is an “elected” dictator who keeps Sharia under a strong thumb. Jordan is a Monarchy where Sharia dare not irritate the Monarch. Turkey is a different confection. In 1998 the Turkish Constitutional Court banned and dissolved Turkey’s Refah Party on the grounds that the “rules of sharia”, which Refah sought to introduce, “were incompatible with the democratic regime,” stating that “democracy is the antithesis of sharia.”

Indonesia is struggling with the suppositions of Sharia law and the guarantees of its constitution.

If the military dictatorship is Pakistan fails, that country will cleave to Sharia law in a heartbeat.

Not every Muslim is against us. But just where are the “moderate” Muslims rising up against the caliphate and the imposition of Sharia law? …….. ……… ……… (crickets chirping.)

It may not even be fair to single out Sharia as it is practiced differently in different countries.

This can not be answered as there is no such word as “eschaton” in the common lexicon. In fact, it is a bastardization of the ancient Greek study of “last things” when studying theological differences: eschatology. However, some sloppy rhetoricians have slipped it in as a noun form as a crutch in their ramblings.

Alvin Failing then purports to quote the Virginia State Constitution. But he quotes the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. This is a document written (mostly) by Jefferson and Mason. The Virginia Constitution was written in large part by A.E. Howard in the 1970’s and I worked with him on the document.

Goode made no complaint about where you place your hand when being sworn into office.

Virgil proudly chooses the Bible. However, if one wishes to grab his crotch, that would be legal.

Goode’s cautionary warning is that Sharia law is held to be the “official word of Allah” and as such is the only law. It is to be enforced, strictly, by the caliphate in obedience to Allah.

When a Muslim swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States by placing his hand on the Koran, what is he actually promising? Is he placing the Constitution above the Koran? How can that be?

If “Alvin Failing” is a pseudonym, it is a fairly good one.

If I’m ‘not’ going to support Christianity being foisted from government positions, I’m not going to support Islam either, Hindu, Native Indian practices, whatever. (I dont know about the plans of the rest of the left-leaning, but I suspect its much the same)

As for Muslims coming in for terrorist purposes –well, I thought we are already covering that, or what the heck are all our security agencies up to?